Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Ukraine

Casually Red said:
that has the look of a story that could grow legs. Its notable that report emphasises Olga Bogomolets is someone important enough that both the Estonian FM and Ashton are on first name terms with her. I saw another report were Olga Bogomolets herself had been offered a post in the juntas government but refused to take it. Her belief at the juntas role in the massacre could well turn out to be a factor in that decision.

I hope for Olga Bogomolets sake shes somewhere safe at the minute.
Click to expand...

A belief which you haven't established and which she appears to deny holding - as well as being a very well know supporter of the Maidan after the sniper attacks. Odd behaviour for someone who thinks the forces she supports ordered and planned the killings she condemns isn't it? And her own stated reason for turning down the vice-prime minister for humanitarian affairs was because she didn't want to go into professional politics. As well as yesterday stating that she trusts the kiev govt - the ones that you think that you've established that she says ordered and planned the sniper attacks. Again, very odd.
 
Last edited:
A pretty much spot on piece from Seymour (as far as it goes anyway) responding to the STW/German nonsense:

Ukraine: against infantile realpolitik

For example, the article reduces the 'colour revolutions' to simple acts of US orchestrated client-installation. This is crass. That the US has intervened in, and attempted to shape the outcome of these revolts is hardly in question. That in some of these revolts, they have played a far more significant role than in others is also not in question. That in Ukraine, this took the form of funding a series of lobbies, think-tanks and 'civil society' groups, is also uncontroversial.

However, one would think that socialists, and particularly marxists, would have more interest in: why masses begin to move; why they respond to particular slogans; why they assemble around particular political leaderships and organisations; and why certain influential layers are able to take command of a situation they neither created nor control. One would expect, surely, some attempt to work out why anyone thought to form 'people's councils' and 'self-defence forces' in such a situation; why a parallel government was formed in Kiev; why the symbolic targets of popular rage should be a statue of Lenin; why the popular demands should include for a time integration into the EU; and so on. (This is a rather good interview on that subject.) German evinces no such interest.

Indeed, while German gestures toward the complexity of the situation, the effect of what she actually says ("historical divisions ... complex and difficult to overcome ... highly contested" etc) is to evoke that complexity as a barrier to understanding. It is so summary, so glancing, that she may as well have said, " it is, after all, a country far away, of which we know little...". It is not analysis, and it is not internationalism.
Click to expand...

Mirrored pretty closely by Mike Marquese here:

We will be asked in public, by the public: 'What about Russia?' In this context, to answer simply that 'the main enemy is at home' will be seen as stonewalling.

There's a patronising notion that we can't do 'two things at the same time', that we can't handle complexity, that there must be a hierarchy of identifiable good guys and bad guys. The anti-war movement is seen as a fragile ensemble. Actually, it's more robust and more sophisticated than that.

The need for unity is cited as a reason not to dwell on Russian misbehaviour. But will evading or exonerating the Russian action really enhance unity in opposition to US-EU war-making? It's an approach that many are bound to find objectionable.

Western military intervention in Ukraine seems unlikely, but the rhetorical indignation of Western leaders plays an insidious role: part of a long-term effort to repair an imperial ideology discredited by Afghanistan and Iraq. When liberals lament the 'impotence' of the West, they're setting the stage for a reassertion of Western 'masculinity' - as and when convenient. Mirroring Western rationales, Moscow characterises its military intervention as a humanitarian mission of protection. At this moment, in relation to Ukraine, imperial hypocrisies, Western and Russian, seem boundless.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
This is nice:

MOSCOW, March 06. /ITAR-TASS/. Military exercises of the Air Defense Troops in Russia’s Western Military District have gathered all district ground forces, including air defense formations of the Northern Fleet, at firing range Kapustin Yar outside the southern Russian city of Astrakhan, chief press officer of the Western Military District Colonel Oleg Kochetkov told Itar-Tass on Thursday.

“This is the most large-scale military exercise of the Air Defense Troops in the Western Military District,” he noted.

Around 3,500 specialists of the district’s army air defense systems and more than 1,000 pieces of military and special hardware were participating in the drills, Kochetkov said. Around 30 military trains were used to transfer military hardware from different Russian regions.
Click to expand...

Note the story on the right as well:

WCIOM: Putin’s rating at two-year maximum for second week
 
From the graunid live feed

Despite small protests in Moscow against the Russian seizure of the Crimea, the majority of the population appears to support intervention there, a new poll has shown. Meanwhile, President Vladimir Putin is enjoying his highest approval rating in two years.

State-run pollster VTsIOM conducted the weekly survey on 1-2 March, just as Russian forces were quietly taking control of government buildings, roads and airports in Crimea. According to the results, 71% of respondents said Russia should more actively defend the interests of Russians in Crimea, while only 17% thought it would be better not to come into conflict with the Ukrainian authorities. However, the results were similar to a poll asking the same question in 2009, when the proportion was 73% for and 15% against more actively defending Russians in Crimea.

VTsIOM also found that 67.8% of respondents approved of Putin, who regularly achieves approval ratings above 60%. Researchers attributed this latest number, which is the highest since May 2012, to the political situation around Crimea and the Olympic and Paralympic Games, which respondents said were the two biggest news events of the week.
Click to expand...
 
butchersapron said:
From Guardians moscow correspondent:


Shaun Walker@shaunwalker7
So after moving from 25 May to 30 March, Crimea's referendum now on 16 March. The question's changed too. Now it's about joining Russia.
Click to expand...
Not much mystery about the referendum outcome. The occupation will be legitimized. Medvedev said Russia will build a bridge to Kerch, on the eastern tip of Crimea. The annexation will be illegal but permanent, similar to Gitmo.
 
The referendum question:
"The Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea resolved: To join the Russian Federation as a constituent of the Russian Federation; To hold on March 16, 2014, an all-Crimea referendum (including Sevastopol) with the following questions: 1) Do you support reunification of Crimea with Russia as a constituent of the Russian Federation? 2) Do you support the reinstatement of the 1992 constitution of the Republic of Crimea and the Crimean status as a part of Ukraine?"

The resolution noted that the answer, which gained the majority of votes, would become the direct expression of will of the Crimean population, the press service said
Click to expand...

The referendum result is to be used as a bargaining chip - not as the actual final outcome. Don't imagine that Crimea gets to decide by itself on what that is.
 
Pickman's model said:
i think you'll find the united states leased guantanamo bay in 1903 as per http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/dip_cuba003.asp
Click to expand...

Despite being legal it's a little like the Treaty of Nanking, early American imperialism. Fight the Spanish in the name of Cuban independence and then force them into signing the Cuban-American Treaty under the threat of annexation. These laws would never pass today, so I really don't see why they should be viewed legal. I don't even get how they can still call it a lease, when the lease is cheaper than a buying a house in the US and that's without pointing out the Cuban government declines payment of their puny $4,000 a year rent.
 
Eastern-Odyssey said:
Despite being legal it's a little like the Treaty of Nanking, early American imperialism. Fight the Spanish in the name of Cuban independence and then force them into signing the Cuban-American Treaty under the threat of annexation. These laws would never pass today, so I really don't see why they should be viewed legal. I don't even get how they can still call it a lease, when the lease is cheaper than a buying a house in the US and that's without pointing out the Cuban government declines payment of their puny $4,000 a year rent.
Click to expand...
yes. i agree it's not good but it is legal.
 
Eastern-Odyssey said:
Despite being legal it's a little like the Treaty of Nanking, early American imperialism. Fight the Spanish in the name of Cuban independence and then force them into signing the Cuban-American Treaty under the threat of annexation. These laws would never pass today, so I really don't see why they should be viewed legal. I don't even get how they can still call it a lease, when the lease is cheaper than a buying a house in the US and that's without pointing out the Cuban government declines payment of their puny $4,000 a year rent.
Click to expand...
The lease is the other way around. Cuba owns the land and America is supposed to pay that sum to the Cuban government for the use of it.
 
Letter from Ukrainian Jewish Community leaders (how credible or not are they?) claiming that there is no discrimination against Russophone minorities in Ukraine
 
framed said:
Has Gorgeous George blown any hot air on RT yet?

I expect his take on the situation will be a mix of Lord Haw Haw and 1970's Radio Moscow...
Click to expand...
He has now.



and on pres tc as well:



You'll also find him claiming that Mandela was a friend of his in the middle of that 2nd one.
 
butchersapron said:
A belief which you haven't established and which she appears to deny holding - as well as being a very well know supporter of the Maidan after the sniper attacks. Odd behaviour for someone who thinks the forces she supports ordered and planned the killings she condemns isn't it? And her own stated reason for turning down the vice-prime minister for humanitarian affairs was because she didn't want to go into professional politics. As well as yesterday stating that she trusts the kiev govt - the ones that you think that you've established that she says ordered and planned the sniper attacks. Again, very odd.
Click to expand...

Pffft.
All explainable if you assume (and are credulous) that she's a "fith columnist". :)
 
seventh bullet said:
Thanks.

By the way, what makes you think Dugin's neo-Eurasianism is a Russian version of Neoconservatism?
Click to expand...

Well I don't think it's the same, I was just looking for an equal comparison, but neoconservative core ideas are about restoring the American empire and strong anti Chinese/Russian sentiment. On the other hand neo-Eurasionism is about restoring the Russian empire with a strong anti-Western sentiment. I just think when you cut out all the crap, both ideologies have the same goal, just a different means of achieving it.

That's not to say Anton Shekhovtsov is completely wrong on his accusations of the neo-Eurasianists, their is certainly fascist undertones in their ideology and this extremely aggressive foreign policy, just like the neoconservatives. Although I don't think this outright labelling of fascism is right and when you take his refusal to use the same labels for Right Sector and other fascist groups involved in the coup, it makes him look more like someone with a personal vendetta than a serious academic.

What I find interesting is the Eurasian Youth Union which Anton Shekhovtsov was a member of (being his t'shirt and website of the article) was banned in 2007 in Ukraine, when Viktor Yushchenko was president. They carried out a few acts of vandalism across the country a few hacking attacks, desecrating a Holodomor memorial and the nationalist symbol on Mount Hoverla http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Youth_Union. Clearly they didn't like the new government, or Ukrainian nationalism very much, but I would hardly call it fascism and it seems to pale in comparison with the armed military training and violence committed by the Ukrainian far right parties. Both Dugin and Zarifullin were banned from entering into Ukraine after the banning of the Eurasion Youth Union, which was probably a win for Washington on controlling what it would class as Russian propaganda. However, it would seem Eurasionism has a strong influence in Crimea and taking this cable into context: https://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06KYIV4489_a.html, was probably banned less for vandalism and more for political purposes.

Here is a training video from Patriots Ukraine Youtube Channel (note the Swastika on the wall). If you were president of Ukraine who would you ban the militants training with AK47's, or a few vandal kids.

 
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-03-06/decree-making-crimea-part-of-russia-already-in-force/

Rustam Temirgaliev said: "The only lawful armed force on the territory of the Crimea is the Russian armed forces." "Armed forces of any third country are occupiers. The Ukrainian armed forces have to choose: lay down their weapons, quit their posts, accept Russian citizenship and join the Russian military. "If they do not agree, we are prepared to offer them safe passage from the territory of Crimea to their Ukrainian homeland.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Is Zelensky no longer convenient both inside and outside Ukraine? [Bot spam]
2
Replies
43
Views
3K
existentialist
existentialist
editor
New Ukraine forum
Replies
0
Views
560
editor
editor
Pickman's model
Ukraine after the war
2 3
Replies
62
Views
6K
phildwyer
phildwyer
YouSir
Global Fallout from the Ukraine War
Replies
23
Views
2K
not-bono-ever
not-bono-ever
MrCurry
After Ukraine, what’s next?
2 3
Replies
76
Views
5K
Dogsauce
Dogsauce
Back
Top Bottom